VAR, Refs and Linesmen | General Discussion

Nothing will be made of the decisions as it never is when we don’t get one.

If we’d have got either of them penalties, they’d be done a broadcast interruption on sky sports news for a 2 hour special
 
2 man midfield said:
Said this at the time. It was never seen again.
Click to expand...
A lot of incidents tonight where our players were fouled were seemingly deliberately ignored by the producers. I mean surely Jackson's arm swing on Maguire and Enzo's elbow on Mainoo should've been showed again, especially the latter that caused a confrontation between Enzo and Casemiro?
 
Genuinely where did the 8 minutes come from? There was one goal and a few subs.
 
Flying high said:
I also never saw a replay of the possible foul on Hojlund, but it looked more of a contact than either of their pens.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it’s mad. Also, when Casemiro was going mad at the ref after Mainoo must’ve been clocked in the face, we don’t get one replay. Just like when the Brentford player on Saturday against us got a yellow and there was a relatively long VAR check with plenty of time for a replay…nothing.
 
Cpt Negative said:
Nothing will be made of the decisions as it never is when we don’t get one.

If we’d have got either of them penalties, they’d be done a broadcast interruption on sky sports news for a 2 hour special
Click to expand...
Exactly.

Gillet will go home tonight, check the post-game coverage and be told he had a good game and didn't make any big errors, whereas anyone making a call going our way (Hooper v Wolves, Atwell v City for the Rashford/Bruno offside incident) will have two weeks of coverage laying out how incompetent he is.
 
I didn't see the game, but I saw that it was 4 minutes added time (correct me if I've got the wrong info here). No subs in extra time... So why did we play so much extra time above those 4?

And don't get me started on any of those two "penalties"
 
Snow said:
Given the way VAR was looking at it they thought so too but football rules are so much stricter than how the game is usually reffed that they couldn't overturn it.
Click to expand...
Chelsea probably don't get either of those pens at OT, VAR wouldn't have overturned either decision and the pundits would probably be saying "contact, but not enough".

It's incredibly frustrating, and these almost paradoxical situations are really taking away from the joy of being a football fan. That, and the absolute tripe we're forced to watch every game of course!
 
Bogga said:
I didn't see the game, but I saw that it was 4 minutes added time (correct me if I've got the wrong info here). No subs in extra time... So why did we play so much extra time above those 4?

And don't get me started on any of those two "penalties"
Click to expand...
It was 8 mins added. Wan Bissaka had a head injury but it wasn’t long he was down.
 
Bogga said:
I didn't see the game, but I saw that it was 4 minutes added time (correct me if I've got the wrong info here). No subs in extra time... So why did we play so much extra time above those 4?

And don't get me started on any of those two "penalties"
Click to expand...
Added time was 8 minutes actually, but the game had absolutely zero incidents of note (apart from Chelsea being 3-2 down) deserving of that much stoppage time. AWB got a cut on his head which took a minute or two, one of our subs was made during half-time and there was no time-wasting indicated by the referee.
 
Bogga said:
I didn't see the game, but I saw that it was 4 minutes added time (correct me if I've got the wrong info here). No subs in extra time... So why did we play so much extra time above those 4?

And don't get me started on any of those two "penalties"
Click to expand...

It was 8 added on.
 
Bogga said:
I didn't see the game, but I saw that it was 4 minutes added time (correct me if I've got the wrong info here). No subs in extra time... So why did we play so much extra time above those 4?

And don't get me started on any of those two "penalties"
Click to expand...

he added 8, and nobody in the world can explain why
 
Mmm-Qatarian said:
Can anybody who thinks that the second penalty was correctly given explain to my why City's first goal at the Etihad against us wasn't disallowed for this and why Walker wasn't sent off for DOGSO?
Click to expand...
Because VAR isn't there to ensure that the 'correct' decision is made all time, they are there to ensure a clear and obvious mistake hasn't been made. Of which neither of those situations were. If the ref let it go, it likely wouldn't have been a penalty. Then it's always a question of how far back they should go and so. But basically because neither calls are clear and obvious mistakes, so they stand.
 
eire-red said:
Chelsea probably don't get either of those pens at OT, VAR wouldn't have overturned either decision and the pundits would probably be saying "contact, but not enough".

It's incredibly frustrating, and these almost paradoxical situations are really taking away from the joy of being a football fan. That, and the absolute tripe we're forced to watch every game of course!
Click to expand...
Don't know how the FA can look at the game in it's current state and be fine with it. The fact that we're saying "oh it's not a foul but because the ref got it wrong and we have this tool that can fix it the rules say they aren't allowed to fix it".

The guidelines around VAR are paradoxical at times and don't even remotely combat a major problem in football that is diving.
 
Anustart89 said:
Added time was 8 minutes actually, but the game had absolutely zero incidents of note (apart from Chelsea being 3-2 down) deserving of that much stoppage time. AWB got a cut on his head which took a minute or two, one of our subs was made during half-time and there was no time-wasting indicated by the referee.
Click to expand...
I’ve not seen many games this season with less time wasting. It was just ball in play at all times, barely any stoppages yet this tit conjures up 8 bastard minutes. Would VAR have stepped in for either pen? Not a fecking chance. He couldn’t wait to whistle.
 
First is pretty soft. Seems a knee on knee is enough for penalties these days even if there's no actually foot contact. Majority of those incidents used to be just waved away 10-15 years ago. It was very similar to Rashford v Nottingham Forest right at the start of the season.

Second one I thought there was enough as there's foot contact and then Dalot nudges him in desperation so not really sure why VAR were zooming in so much.

Neither were anything close to Calvert Lewin v Bournemouth on Saturday. For those who haven't seen it, he turns in the box, a Bournemouth player kicks him and VAR doesn't decide it's a high enough threshold to send the ref to the monitor as it should've done.

Players are certainly gaming the system now constantly going down and very often getting the penalty when in reality video backup should be restricting this.
 
FootballHQ said:
First is pretty soft. Seems a knee on knee is enough for penalties these days even if there's no actually foot contact. Majority of those incidents used to be just waved away 10-15 years ago. It was very similar to Rashford v Nottingham Forest right at the start of the season.

Second one I thought there was enough as there's foot contact and then Dalot nudges him in desperation so not really sure why VAR were zooming in so much.

Neither were anything close to Calvert Lewin v Bournemouth on Saturday. For those who haven't seen it, he turns in the box, a Bournemouth player kicks him and VAR doesn't decide it's a high enough threshold to send the ref to the monitor as it should've done.

Players are certainly gaming the system now constantly going down and very often getting the penalty when in reality video backup should be restricting this.
Click to expand...
VAR zooming in on the feet (and ignoring the hand on the groin) has to be because ref has given foot-on-foot contact as the reason he gave the penalty, which VAR then has to confirm or disprove. Refs are required to explain why they gave the penalty, so Gillet must've had that contact as his explanation.

With regards to the last bit, diving has such a good risk/reward ratio for players, because even if the foul gets overturned we literally never see a ref go and book the diving player anyway.

When Mike Riley was head of the PGMOL a few years back he was giving it out about how they were going to be even more strict on judging whether the contact caused the reaction of the player or if the player has chosen to go down. They now have a tool to watch how the player reacts to the contact, and yet today's penalty and the Jota one against Newcastle somehow stand.

https://www.manutd.com/en/news/deta...-mike-riley-and-four-new-referees-for-2021-22

"The principles we established are the referee should look for contact and establish clear contact, then ask if that contact has a consequence, and then has the player used that contact to try to win a foul or win a penalty," Riley said. "It's not sufficient to say 'yes there's contact.'

"I think partly we got into that frame of mind by the forensic analysis that went on in the VAR world. Contact on its own is only part of what the referee should look for. Consider consequence and the motivation of the player as well."
 
Hey pals, regardless of varying opinions here, this loss must not be pinned on refereeing. The full fault goes to the manager, Mr. Erik Ten Hag. Me God, that man is clueless and colourless. Out of his depth.
 
If dalot just threw his arms out and accidentally knocks the ball out for a corner they couldn't have given a pen because he was falling to the ground.
 
Snow said:
Don't know how the FA can look at the game in it's current state and be fine with it. The fact that we're saying "oh it's not a foul but because the ref got it wrong and we have this tool that can fix it the rules say they aren't allowed to fix it".

The guidelines around VAR are paradoxical at times and don't even remotely combat a major problem in football that is diving.
Click to expand...
Yeah.. no fan wants to see either of those fouls given against their team. Similarly, the other set of fans will think it's a pen.

It's frustrating because you literally have someone reviewing the footage at slow motion, zooming in on freeze-frames and actively looking for contact to not overturn such a questionable decision.

Then we hear at the start of every season that refs are clamping down on soft fouls and minimal contact tackles being free-kicks, and you watch a game literally be decided on those tonight.

It has been this way forever, but now that VAR is there it makes it harder to take. That's the crux of it really. The "I can see why the ref gave it" just doesn't have the legs it used to anymore.
 
Anustart89 said:
VAR zooming in on the feet (and ignoring the hand on the groin) has to be because ref has given foot-on-foot contact as the reason he gave the penalty, which VAR then has to confirm or disprove. Refs are required to explain why they gave the penalty, so Gillet must've had that contact as his explanation.

With regards to the last bit, diving has such a good risk/reward ratio for players, because even if the foul gets overturned we literally never see a ref go and book the diving player anyway.
Click to expand...

It’s a contact sport.

If the contact is so minimal that you keep on running and suddenly collapse to the ground without any sign you’ve lost your balance due to the initial contact, then it’s fairly telling it shouldn’t be a penalty
 
FootballHQ said:
First is pretty soft. Seems a knee on knee is enough for penalties these days even if there's no actually foot contact. Majority of those incidents used to be just waved away 10-15 years ago. It was very similar to Rashford v Nottingham Forest right at the start of the season.

Second one I thought there was enough as there's foot contact and then Dalot nudges him in desperation so not really sure why VAR were zooming in so much.

Neither were anything close to Calvert Lewin v Bournemouth on Saturday. For those who haven't seen it, he turns in the box, a Bournemouth player kicks him and VAR doesn't decide it's a high enough threshold to send the ref to the monitor as it should've done.

Players are certainly gaming the system now constantly going down and very often getting the penalty when in reality video backup should be restricting this.
Click to expand...
Diving is rewarded in football and very, very rarely punished. Every game now has a random number of alloted time added so diving isn't even punishable that way anymore. If you're a young footballer you should be practicing diving. If you aren't you are limiting yourself.
 
Heinzesight said:
I’ve not seen many games this season with less time wasting. It was just ball in play at all times, barely any stoppages yet this tit conjures up 8 bastard minutes. Would VAR have stepped in for either pen? Not a fecking chance. He couldn’t wait to whistle.
Click to expand...

Exactly right. 8 minutes is a clear sign that corruption or bias decided the amount of time to add.
 
SER19 said:
he added 8, and nobody in the world can explain why
Click to expand...

I've noticed refs seem to be adding 2 minutes when teams make double subs (even if players are leaving the pitch quickly and it is taking less than a minute).

Six was about right as they add a minute for a goal now and AWB was down for over a minute getting treated so with the subs it was nearer that than eight.
 
Keep arguing all you want about the penalties, the real question is how he gave BOTH without missing a heartbeat, but judged hojlund not to be fouled at emirates. It's cheating, plain and simple cheating.
 
SER19 said:
Keep arguing all you want about the penalties, the real question is how he gave BOTH without missing a heartbeat, but judged hojlund not to be fouled at emirates. It's cheating, plain and simple cheating.
Click to expand...

Was it the same ref? Christ.
 
Withnail said:
That's objectively a shocking decision. There was no discernible contact
Click to expand...
Cucurella just dangles his left leg behind him. He's falling there, whether contact is made or not. I just can't see any contact at all. Am I missing something?
 
Alex99 said:
Was it the same ref? Christ.
Click to expand...

he was on var at arsenal, which makes it worse as he watched the same hojlund replays we did and judged not enough contact. but tonight, saw enough contact twice, from the wrong side of the calls.
 
eire-red said:
Cucurella just dangles his left leg behind him. He's falling there, whether contact is made or not. I just can't see any contact at all. Am I missing something?
Click to expand...

There’s the slightest contact between Antonys knee and Cucurellas left thigh, that’s it. Clear dive
 
Anustart89 said:
Exactly.

Gillet will go home tonight, check the post-game coverage and be told he had a good game and didn't make any big errors, whereas anyone making a call going our way (Hooper v Wolves, Atwell v City for the Rashford/Bruno offside incident) will have two weeks of coverage laying out how incompetent he is.
Click to expand...
Spot on. It's the media setting the agenda for referees to either consciously or sub consciously follow, so as to avoid being slaughtered. The only two non corrupt refs in the league are Simon Hooper and Graham Scott.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.